The U.S. troop presence in Syria is aimed at defeating the Islamic State, but also has the “residual benefits” of deterring Iran, Assistant Defense Secretary Robert Karem told a House panel on Wednesday.
However, the military has not been tasked with confronting Iran in the war-torn country, and such operations would likely not be legal under existing war authorizations passed by Congress, Karem said in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.
His testimony comes amid questions over the Trump administration’s policy in Syria after national security adviser John Bolton said Monday that troops will stay in the country until Iran leaves and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis responded by saying the military is only focused on ISIS.
“Our military operations in Syria are squarely focused because of the authorities we have been provided against ISIS and al Qaeda,” Karem said. “It is, of course, the case that our presence in Syria, our military presence has residual benefits, benefits for our diplomats who are trying to seek a negotiated end to the conflict and residual benefits because it can help deter activities from other adversaries.”
“There are aspects of our military operations or presence that can be useful in countering Iran,” he said.
Bolton spoke about the U.S. presence in Syria during the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York City.
“We’re not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian proxies and militias,” Bolton said, according to the Associated Press.
Karem said the statement by Bolton was an “analytical judgment” and that it should be separated from the work of the Pentagon, when asked by House lawmakers about the seeming disconnect between the Bolton and Mattis statements.
“It is clearly a high priority of the United States to counter Iran’s malign activities throughout the region, including in Syria. I would disaggregate however our overall U.S. policy objectives from our military activities,” he said.
The U.S. began operations against ISIS in 2014 under a 9/11-era war authorization against al Qaeda and associated terror groups, and legal questions remain over whether the authorization could be stretched to include operations against Iran.
“The 2001 AUMF is quite clear that it applies to al Qaeda and associated groups,” Karem said.
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., the top Democrat on the House Armed Services panel, pressed the assistant defense secretary on his testimony and legality of such operations.
Bolton “said that the presence, the military presence will last in Syria until Iran withdraws its forces. That to me sounds like an operation against Iran, which you’ve just stated is not allowed under the authorization for the use of military force,” Moulton said.
“I think if we were conducting operations against Iran that would be the case, but we are not,” Karem responded.
Source » washingtonexaminer